研究文献是一个不安全的工作场所。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Jennifer A Byrne, Adrian G Barnett
{"title":"研究文献是一个不安全的工作场所。","authors":"Jennifer A Byrne, Adrian G Barnett","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research is conducted in workplaces that can present safety hazards. Where researchers work in laboratories, safety hazards can arise through the need to operate complex equipment that can become unsafe if faulty or broken. The research literature also represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment. This article compares our current capacity to flag and repair faulty equipment in research laboratories versus the literature. Whereas laboratory researchers can place written notices on faulty and broken equipment to flag problems and the need for repairs, researchers have limited capacity to flag faulty research publications to other users. We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The research literature is an unsafe workplace.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer A Byrne, Adrian G Barnett\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research is conducted in workplaces that can present safety hazards. Where researchers work in laboratories, safety hazards can arise through the need to operate complex equipment that can become unsafe if faulty or broken. The research literature also represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment. This article compares our current capacity to flag and repair faulty equipment in research laboratories versus the literature. Whereas laboratory researchers can place written notices on faulty and broken equipment to flag problems and the need for repairs, researchers have limited capacity to flag faulty research publications to other users. We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究工作是在可能存在安全隐患的工作场所进行的。研究人员在实验室工作时,需要操作复杂的设备,而这些设备一旦出现故障或损坏,就会导致安全隐患。研究文献也是数百万科学家和学者的工作场所,其中的出版物可被视为关键的研究设备。本文比较了我们目前对研究实验室和文献中的故障设备进行标记和维修的能力。实验室研究人员可以在故障和损坏的设备上张贴书面通知,标明问题和维修需求,而研究人员向其他用户标明故障研究出版物的能力却很有限。我们认为,我们目前无法快速、大规模地标记错误出版物,再加上现实世界中期刊和出版商缺乏激励机制,无法将足够的资源用于出版后的更正工作,这导致研究文献成为一个越来越不安全的工作场所。我们介绍了可能的解决方案,例如将描述可核实错误的签名 PubPeer 通知转移到相关出版物的能力,以及重新激活 PubMed Commons。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The research literature is an unsafe workplace.

Research is conducted in workplaces that can present safety hazards. Where researchers work in laboratories, safety hazards can arise through the need to operate complex equipment that can become unsafe if faulty or broken. The research literature also represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment. This article compares our current capacity to flag and repair faulty equipment in research laboratories versus the literature. Whereas laboratory researchers can place written notices on faulty and broken equipment to flag problems and the need for repairs, researchers have limited capacity to flag faulty research publications to other users. We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信